Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pratt Beating Fuel Burn On NEO  
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12420 posts, RR: 100
Posted (10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14518 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Pointing out that CFM’s Leap-1A engine for the Airbus A320NEO will not run until the fall, P&W President David Hess says “our NEO engine is flying and, in the most recent configuration, the fuel-burn numbers are half a percent better than predictions.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_06_17_2013_p0-588704.xml

Ok, a half percent isn't much, but usually from now until EIS fuel burn is improved 2.5% or so...



I'm facinated that GE is promising 1% lower fuel burn than the PW1100G and better fuel burn retention... Its a match!   

Lightsaber


I've posted how many times?!?
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3209 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14351 times:

Rooting for the GTF. Its great to see them take a bold step in a new direction. Hope they are rewarded.


tortugamon


User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14204 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Thread starter):
Ok, a half percent isn't much, but usually from now until EIS fuel burn is improved 2.5% or so...

Interesting article! For sure a real battle,
It depends if he compares to the expected final fuel burn or where they expected themselves to be at this stage of the project.



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14168 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
Rooting for the GTF. Its great to see them take a bold step in a new direction. Hope they are rewarded.

Indeed. It shouldn't have taken the industry that long to take this major step ahead.

Guaranteeing reliability is probably a necessity at this point, but I hope that it won't bite them too hard, if at all.

But exceeding fuel burn sounds like a great start already. That should relax the overall risk equation both for them and for their customers, even if some initial issues should in fact crop up (knock on wood).


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 5251 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13925 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
Guaranteeing reliability is probably a necessity at this point, but I hope that it won't bite them too hard, if at all.

At this point I think it all comes down to reliability and maintenance costs. Along as reality meets projections then it will be good for PW. Of course if they exceed then that's just gravy and I suspect they have been trying to remain conservative just to hedge bets.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3613 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13654 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
Rooting for the GTF.

+1.

They're the only ones who have boldly gone for a radical engine design instead of incremental improvement. They should be rewarded.

As Tugger said, they have likely been conservative due to the risk of introducing a new technology. The room for improvement on the GTF is, IMO, huge. Much larger than for the LEAP.

Of course, all of that won't mean much if the reliability, time on wing and cost of maintenance don't follow suit...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12420 posts, RR: 100
Reply 6, posted (10 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13560 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 2):
Interesting article! For sure a real battle,

For sure. But its not just a technology battle (as much as I wish that was the case). It is also going to be a case of financing and there GE has a leg up.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 2):
It depends if he compares to the expected final fuel burn or where they expected themselves to be at this stage of the project.

A fair question. I believe the former, but it could very well be the later.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
Indeed. It shouldn't have taken the industry that long to take this major step ahead.

Have the billions to invest.  

However, I was frustrated. I was working the PW8000 for a circa 2001 launch and that certainly didn't happen...

But these things take time...

Quoting francoflier (Reply 5):
They're the only ones who have boldly gone for a radical engine design instead of incremental improvement. They should be rewarded.

I'm a Pratt fan, so I'm going to put my bias aside. Pratt with the C-series forced the NEO. The GTF on the NEO has forced GE and partners to counter with a whole set of new technologies that sum up, at least per promise, will match the GTF. It is interesting to see the forward movement through two parallel paths. So its good to have competition.

Besides, I work for a vendor with product on *both* engines now.  

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 12817 times:

Go Pratt go!

Will be happy to see their once-ubiquitous eagle logo ply the skies the world over again.


Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinecuban8 From Kiribati, joined Sep 2009, 265 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11834 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 6):
It is interesting to see the forward movement through two parallel paths. So its good to have competition.

Besides, I work for a vendor with product on *both* engines now.  

Definitely interesting and rewarding for future Airbus customers!!!! If you don't mind, I will ask for your opinion in the future in regards of engine options.

My boss is pushing me for the A319 CJ NEO, but we still haven't received the performance data for the ACJ NEO and it's is still not officially announced (I'm hoping for some news at Le Bourget, but so far no news). Rumours says they are working on a new wing and engine option to be able to provide a 6000nm range for the ACJ NEO (which would make Dubai-New York non-stop possible), so I believe these small fractions of percentages on engine efficiency are going to be very important for us at the end of the day...


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1509 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 11133 times:

I hope GE/Cfm have not put their (performance) words into contracts - 'cos if they have they will go bust!

RR correctly decided to bow out. They could see the writing on the wall with the GTF. Cfm feel that by incorporatig fighter jet temps and pressures they can match it. I do not believe they can and certainly not on mantainance.

I bet RR are working away on Planitary GTF technology to prevent a similar move into the big jets where they enjoy a duopoly (or merge?)

BTW I bet the GTF is quiet too.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Kyrgyzstan, joined Jul 2007, 7624 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10932 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't think half a percent "isn't much". Over time it's a hell of a lot really, and on a machine that was already predicted to be very efficient.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1091 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10798 times:

What I don't get in this kind of competition is that as soon as the numbers are out, why would anybody buy the engine that performs less well? If I remember well most A320 fly with the same engine even thought there are two available. And the A321 with another.

Or is it always a question of trade-offs? One engine is better but not in every aspect so there is room for both in the market? Or some companies like Air France always stay with one brand.

In this case. What will happen if the Pratt burns 1.5% less than the Leap? Is it winner takes all? HOw about the A380 two options? Isn't the EA a better engine?


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12420 posts, RR: 100
Reply 12, posted (10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10658 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cuban8 (Reply 8):
If you don't mind, I will ask for your opinion in the future in regards of engine options.

Feel free. There are a mix of people here who know the different aspects. I know the theory/design. Others here are more an expert on the operations.

Quoting cuban8 (Reply 8):
My boss is pushing me for the A319 CJ NEO, but we still haven't received the performance data for the ACJ NEO and it's is still not officially announced (I'm hoping for some news at Le Bourget, but so far no news).

I'm not a fan of the A319NEO for commercial airlines. IMHO, it is the next A318 (if built). The leasing companies won't touch it until it sells well which means it won't sell... Only F9 has bought the A319NEO and with their impending sale, I fully expect the order to be up-gauged.

Quoting cuban8 (Reply 8):
Rumours says they are working on a new wing and engine option to be able to provide a 6000nm range for the ACJ NEO

I've heard rumors of the A321 wing... but for the A320 CJ NEO...

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 10):
I don't think half a percent "isn't much". Over time it's a hell of a lot really, and on a machine that was already predicted to be very efficient.

Fair enough. But 1/2% is only a 0.15% reduction in total costs for a typical narrowbody mission. So while it is an advantage, it takes more fuel burn reduction to drive sales from the LEAPx. And the LEAPx is promising 1% lower fuel burn than Pratt, so closing that gap (if any really exists) is critical to sell the new concept.


Now for some related news for everyone.
First, I'm amused IAE just hit a peak production rate of 500 engines/year:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...e-brazilian-kc-390-transport-tests

However that doesn't compare to GE's plans of 1,700 LEAPx per year!   
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ies-drive-engine-makers-their-game


Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12420 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9833 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A380900 (Reply 11):

What I don't get in this kind of competition is that as soon as the numbers are out, why would anybody buy the engine that performs less well? If I remember well most A320 fly with the same engine even thought there are two available. And the A321 with another.

Or is it always a question of trade-offs? One engine is better but not in every aspect so there is room for both in the market?

It is a matter of trade offs. Almost always the engine with less fuel burn has higher maintenance costs. Then there is financing. Each engine manufacturer can only afford to loan out so much money each year (in this economy, that helps move engines).

But remember for narrowbodies, fuel costs are up to 30% to 50% of total costs. So a 0.5% reduction in fuel burn is only 0.15% of total costs. Since spare parts are ~4% to 5% of costs, a little discounting there does more. Then there are maintenance plans where a better maintenance plan will save more. Then there is warrantee, spare engines, spare buying schedule/location, and production rates.

For example, for the A321, the V2500 is the better engine. But IAE is only able to make 500 engines per year. Why the better engine? Lower fuel burn. But on the A319, the CFM-56 is the better engine due to lower maintenance costs (shorter typical mission).

Its also tooling. If an airline owns all the custom stuff to service a GE engine, the 0.5% difference in fuel burn could be less than the equipment. Now if it were 1.5%, the airline would switch as that is a notable range difference.

Now if an engine is clearly superior, then it sells very well. e.g, the T700 on the A330. But on the 787, the GEnX is promising better fuel burn, so its sold better. But wait, the T1000 has less fuel burn during climb. So its only past 2500nm the GEnX is burning less fuel.

And what of reliability. The inital Pratt PW2000 burned 7% less fuel than the RR Trents. But the Pratt's were so trouble prone that it gave RR time to redesign and replace the existing engines to the point they were competitive. While the Pratt's still burn less fuel, until a few years ago the RR lasted 4X as long between overhauls! Pratt improved just in time to watch the 757 line shut down...

Its all tradeoffs and negotiations expressed as dollars for each airline.

Quoting parapente (Reply 9):
I hope GE/Cfm have not put their (performance) words into contracts - 'cos if they have they will go bust!

They had to. They won't go bust. But oh boy... We received a rather gleeful e-mail from the Paris Air show from our 'mucky muck' there as GE is YELLING at their vendors trying to meet promise and the majority of them can't do it. We are delivering.  

Look at the 787. Both RR and GE missed promise by quite a bit. RR has improved fuel burn since EIS by 3.5% and GE has improved too (I forgot where they are... I know... need to wake up). Yet neither is at promise yet both are selling product.   

Now my rumor mill insists the PW1500G has margin. They don't talk the PW1100G (too far into the NDAs).

Quoting parapente (Reply 9):
BTW I bet the GTF is quiet too.

The LEAP-X might be quieter. Pratt avoided the Chevrons due to the fuel burn penalty and fatigue risk. Yes, the PW1100 has a higher bypass ratio, but the Chevrons really help reduce noise at a 0.25% fuel burn penalty and some weight.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinedynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1848 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8814 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 5):
They're the only ones who have boldly gone for a radical engine design instead of incremental improvement. They should be rewarded.

Geared turbofans have been in service for more than three decades. The Lycoming/Honeywell LF502 was first certified in 1980. Pratt's PW1000G will have much higher thrust than LF502. So, the gear technology would be more challenging than LF502. But it definitely is not a radical engine design.

Quoting parapente (Reply 9):
I hope GE/Cfm have not put their (performance) words into contracts - 'cos if they have they will go bust!

RR correctly decided to bow out. They could see the writing on the wall with the GTF. Cfm feel that by incorporatig fighter jet temps and pressures they can match it. I do not believe they can and certainly not on mantainance

I don't mean history will repeat itself, but we need to be aware of the history. When Pratt launched PW2000 for 757, it had ~10% better fuel burn than RB211-535C2 and CF6-32. GE bowed out. Rolls improved the offer with -535E4, but it was still ~5% worse on fuel burn on paper than PW2000. Pratt did deliver the fuel burn promise, but under-delivered on many other aspects. RB211 was the eventual market winner.

So, let's see how P&W executes on PW1000G this time around.


User currently offlineN757ST From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 338 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7343 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 12):

There is no difference between an a321 wing and an A319/320 wing except for the double slotted flap. The intent of the double slot it to reduce pitch on landing by 1 degree to help with potential tail strike issues.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12420 posts, RR: 100
Reply 16, posted (10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6939 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N757ST (Reply 15):
There is no difference between an a321 wing and an A319/320 wing except for the double slotted flap. The intent of the double slot it to reduce pitch on landing by 1 degree to help with potential tail strike issues.

You're right. For some reason I was thinking there was more than the 0.8m^2 difference in wing area... Its the fuel system that is quite different. But that is already on the CJs...

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineN757ST From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 338 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6710 times:

Fuel system is a bit different. Fuel cannot pump directly from the center fuel tanks to the engines like on the a320, instead scavenge pumps are used to pump fuel from the center tank to the wing tanks to the engines. Also, unlike the a320, the a321 doesn't have outer wing tanks, just main wing fuel tanks.

Not to rattle on, I just went though differences training in the last week in anticipation of our first a321s coming online this fall, so the info is fresh in my head.

[Edited 2013-06-18 11:51:35]

[Edited 2013-06-18 11:52:23]

User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2497 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (10 months 4 days ago) and read 6108 times:

Quoting A380900 (Reply 11):
why would anybody buy the engine that performs less well? [...] Or is it always a question of trade-offs? One engine is better but not in every aspect so there is room for both in the market? Or some companies like Air France always stay with one brand.

Definitely a matter of trade-offs. Lighsaber has given some good examples. Also, look at large airlines like LH or AA. They have large enough fleets that they generate enough economies of scale to buy both CFM and IAE depending on the mission. AF is quite close to GE and Snecma (which remember makes 50% of the CFM56 & LeapX and 24% of the GE90), and likely have good deals running with them in terms of maintenance and financing.

Basically, if Pratt & CFM can replicate today's situation with the IAE and CFM56 where each engine has small advantages/disadvantages over the other (IAE lower fuel burn but higher maintenance, CFM higher fuel burn but better on maintenance), there will be a market for both.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 13):
Almost always the engine with less fuel burn has higher maintenance costs.

That rule has applied when comparing similar architectures (CFM vs IAE, etc), but I wonder what will happen with the different GTF vs classic architectures. One would think the gear would need higher maintenance, but CFM will have to run their engine at higher temperatures to match it, which means higher maintenance costs as well.   


User currently offlinecuban8 From Kiribati, joined Sep 2009, 265 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4913 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 18):
Basically, if Pratt & CFM can replicate today's situation with the IAE and CFM56 where each engine has small advantages/disadvantages over the other (IAE lower fuel burn but higher maintenance, CFM higher fuel burn but better on maintenance), there will be a market for both.

As far as I know, the CFM engine has been the most popular engine for the A320 family. Hearing from engineers, the IAE engine is very complicated when it comes to maintenance (too many parts to remove for simple adjustments). As you mentioned, the IAE engine burns less fuel in flight while I believe the CFM engine is supposed to have better efficiency at lower altitude and to a certain extent better climb performance than the IAE engine. All in all, I guess they are quite equal when everything is summed up.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3829 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 18):
That rule has applied when comparing similar architectures (CFM vs IAE, etc), but I wonder what will happen with the different GTF vs classic architectures. One would think the gear would need higher maintenance, but CFM will have to run their engine at higher temperatures to match it, which means higher maintenance costs as well

And presumably the Pratt engine will be running the fan at a lower speed, so there should be a reliability advantage there. How does the GTF drive the accessories? Does it come off the fan gearbox?


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12420 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3545 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting r2rho (Reply 18):
I wonder what will happen with the different GTF vs classic architectures.

I should have been more specific. Normally the way to cut fuel burn is by upping pressure. Yes, the GTF sidesteps that. In fact, the PW1000G family is *very* simple and low temperature (by today's standards). I fully expect it to have a third lower maintenance cost than the LEAP-X. (I'm still amazed by the LEAP-X stage counts.)




Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3613 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3241 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 9):
I hope GE/Cfm have not put their (performance) words into contracts - 'cos if they have they will go bust!

The LEAP-X certainly has to wow the same crowd with a smaller bag of tricks, but I'm not worried for them.

Even if they lost every single NEO client, the MAX would bring them 50-ish % market share anyhow.
As it stands now, the LEAP-X is bound to represent roughly 75% of the next gen narrow bodies powerplants worldwide. Soon, it will be just as ubiquitous as the CFM-56 is today.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinedynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1848 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3066 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
I should have been more specific. Normally the way to cut fuel burn is by upping pressure. Yes, the GTF sidesteps that. In fact, the PW1000G family is *very* simple and low temperature (by today's standards). I fully expect it to have a third lower maintenance cost than the LEAP-X. (I'm still amazed by the LEAP-X stage counts.)

For the GTF to have better fuel burn than LEAP-X, the GTF will need to have similar thermal efficiency as LEAP-X, because on the NEO application, the bypass difference of the two engine offerings is relatively small. Hence, the propulsive efficiency advantage is relatively small. If GTF has low temperature, then it means it has lower thermal efficiency. I doubt the small propulsive efficiency can make up for the thermal efficiency difficency, let alone to maintain a fuel burn advantage. You can't have both low temperature AND better fuel burn. Simple physics! And Pratt's commercial experience on high pressure ratio compressor is lagging.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11924 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3001 times:

Related article at AvWeek: Pratt Begins Talking Next-Generation GTF

Quote:

Hess says P&W has a roadmap to increase the GTF fuel savings to 20-30% from 15% by the middle of the next decade. Some of that will come from bigger fans that increase bypass ratio to 15-18 from around 12 on the PW1000G, but P&W also plans to improve the core.

This will involve increasing the overall temperature of the engine and require new materials, says Adams. “We will drive thermal efficiency. Core technology will push overall pressure ratio beyond 60, which is the next threshold for this size of engine.”

“Temperature is a value trade with cash operating cost. We will not arbitrarily drive temperatures too high to gain performance but lose on maintenance cost,” he says. “We are in a good place with the current GTF.”

So we'll be seeing bigger fans and better cores.

We also read:

Momentum Building To Bring PW1100G GTF Under IAE:

Quote:

Sales and marketing for both engine programs have been combined since November 2012, to present “a single face to the customer,” says Beatty. “With the same shareholders in both programs, it is an opportunity to look at more collaboration.”

Hess agrees that IAE is the appropriate brand for the PW1100G on the A320NEO, while Pratt’s own PurePower brand for the GTF family is now firmly established with engines on the Bombardier CSeries, Embraer E-Jet E2, Mitusbishi MRJ and Irkut MC-21.

I like the idea: put the IAE name on the ones going on the NEOs and keep the good ol' Pratt name on the new applications.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
25 Post contains images lightsaber : The GTF has a much higher propulsion efficiency thanks to the lower fan Mach #. The GTF also has a *far* higher low turbine efficiency thanks to the
26 Post contains links lightsaber : I personally like this link for comparing the two engines: http://airinsight.com/2011/11/09/com...nes-gtf-vs-leap-maintenance-costs/ CFM’s parts wou
27 Post contains images dynkrisolo : You're talking about component efficiencies. Propulsive efficiency is only a function of bypass ratio. Are you saying component efficiencies can swin
28 dynkrisolo : Go ask an engine MRO: what part of the engine makes up most of the engine maintenance cost. You'll get the answer: hot section. The GTF advantage on
29 Post contains images lightsaber : Its also a function of the profile factor of the fan in the real world. The high mach # fan of the LEAP-X is not producing a plug flow by any means..
30 PW100 : Be careful, next thing we know this thread end up in TechOps! Anyway, thank you greatly for taking the time for this very thorough insight! And I do
31 Post contains images lightsaber : Both. Now the peak temperature is at end of initial climb, so it happens once per cycle. Thus the hours for a widebody aren't really aging the engine
32 Post contains links Revelation : Another interesting point from Pratt Dismisses CFM Leap's Superiority Claims Regarding GTF: Google brings me to https://www.flightglobal.com/news/arti
33 lightsaber : It wasn't just for flutter margin. It was to provide a 2% drop in fuel burn. Its being eliminated to ensure the engines meet maintenance promises. It
34 Revelation : Thanks, your explanation makes sense to me. Seems to be yet another tradeoff for bigger fans to deal with. Of course if anyone has a diagram lying ar
35 Sharktail : When we say a 2% fuel savings, what mission profile are we talking about? Since this adds weight, it probably does not improve fuel savings in shorter
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Need Info On Fuel Burn And Some Other Stuff posted Tue Feb 3 2004 02:25:27 by Elwood64151
Passenger Spots A Fuel Leak On LO Flight To NY posted Tue May 7 2013 02:57:43 by ariis
Another Fuel Leak On JAL 787 posted Sun Jan 13 2013 07:31:59 by 71Zulu
AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn posted Tue Jun 26 2012 07:42:04 by pygmalion
Ryanair To FAs: Help Decrease Fuel Burn posted Fri Apr 6 2012 15:35:17 by ItalianFlyer
Is Boeing Exaggerating Fuel Burn Numbers posted Mon Jan 23 2012 08:23:35 by eaa3
Pratt CEO Warns Boeing On 737 MAX posted Wed Sep 7 2011 03:05:21 by blueshamu330s
Ryanair Quite Keen On Neo Programs posted Thu Oct 14 2010 18:45:36 by QFA787380
Lufthansa Sees CSeries Fuel Burn Better Than A380 posted Fri Aug 6 2010 08:23:02 by panais
FI- Airbus Recognise EA A380 Fuel Burn Improvement posted Fri Jul 23 2010 09:46:49 by astuteman